Bishop Kevin Farrell of the Catholic Diocese of Dallas has taken issue publicly with a Southern Methodist University professor’s upcoming lecture on U.S. Catholic bishops and abortion law.

The Rev. Charles Curran is a Catholic priest and ethicist who has long taught at SMU, and who also has a history of tangling with the Vatican over social issues.

He’s to give a lecture Thursday at SMU titled “The U.S. Catholic Bishops and Abortion Legislation: A Critique From Within the Church.”

An SMU press release says: “Curran’s lecture will examine how U.S. Roman Catholic bishops have made opposition to legal abortion their primary social issue, and will challenge the bishops from a theological perspective for claiming too much certitude in their position.”

Bishop Farrell affirmed the American bishop’s consistent position against abortion with church teachings from Pope John Paul II in a statement on the SMU Catholic Campus Ministry’s website.

“There is room in the Catholic Church for different positions on many issues,” Farrell said. “However, on the taking of innocent human life there is no room for ambiguity.”

Curran, who has stirred controversy before by challenging church teachings on social issues, accepts that abortion is always wrong and sees his paper as addressing the church’s advocacy for abortion laws in the U.S..

Although Curran was banned from teaching theology at Catholic University in the 1980s for disagreeing with the church’s stance on birth control for married couples, homosexuality, divorce, marriage and women in ministry, he doesn’t take a progressive stance for the sake of being progressive. He presents a thoughtful argument, according to the National Catholic Reporter:

Anyone who’s been to a Curran lecture and expects fiery denunciations of church teaching from the radical left always leave disappointed. He is a measured, very detailed and tediously researched scholar who, I’d venture to say, has read more about church teachings, its origins and how it is used, than most bishops anywhere. That’s not to denigrate bishops, it’s just to say that most of them aren’t theologians. The point is that Curran takes the teaching very seriously, and when he critiques it, it is with a nuance and consideration that doesn’t yield easy sound bites.

42 Responses

“birth control for married couples, homosexuality, divorce, marriage and women in ministry”.

Hmmmm, Curan still has time in his career to challenge the Pope’s authority and representation of Christ; real presence in the Eucharist; traditions of fasting, austerity, poverty, chastity, and obedience; celibacy of the priesthood; and purgatory. Let’s pray that Fr. Curan can repent and do penance so that his blindness is illuminated with the Word and Truth and Wisdom – Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Most Catholics don’t know it, but the history of the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion has a more complicated history than they have been told. Prior to the 20th Century, the teachings of Thomas Aquinas dominated Church thinking. Aquinas said that full “ensoulment” of a fetus did not occur until quickening, when the child stirred in the womb, and that prior to that time it was something less than fully human. It was only in the 20th Century that the Church began to teach that life begins at conception. Even then, it has never raised that teaching to the level of an article of faith, that every Catholic is required to believe, which it does by issuing the doctrine ex cathedra. The Church hierarchy has obscured the issue to the point where most Catholics believe the Church’s position on abortion has remained unchanged for hundreds of years, when that is really not true. Those are the kinds of things Father Curran points out.

HAIL ! ! ! Romans! i charge thee before GOD, in The Lord JESUS CHRIST, to preach The Gospel; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when the americans will not endure sound doctrine[(KJV)Revalation16:10&11]; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers speaking lies in hypocrisies: like those of Charles Curran; having their consciences seared with a hot iron, they shall all turn away their ears from The Truth to listen to such fables. But watch thou, Romans: in all things, endure affliction, do the work of a true christian evengelist, make full proof of thy ministry, take heed that no one deceive you …know, that every idle word a human utters, they shall give account thereof in their day of judgement and by thy words thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. For them that will love life and see good days, let them refrain from doing evils with their expressions; that they express no guile.

It’s not like Jesus would have demanded that the priests and scribes think about their rules and try to be sure that the theology they preached was backed up by scripture. Heck, they probably would have hung him up if he did that.

“The Rev. Charles Curran is a Catholic priest and ethicist who has long taught at SMU, and who also has a history of tangling with the Vatican over social issues.”

.

It is refreshing to know that Reb. Charles Curran dares to have an opposing & progressive voice. Sooner rather than later, the Catholic church is going to be forced to ‘modernize’ its thinking and ways. To do otherwise is to live in the past and to continue to subscribe to a bunch of geriatrics that call the shots within the Vatican.

Oh GAG “catholic confessor”!! People like him NEED to challenege the antiquated beliefs from the Dark Ages as spiritual revelation is ALWAYS occuring! Or else women would STILL be barefoot, pregnant and illerate, and the wealthy would still have slaves! If the RCC insists on it’s backwards views, it will die from its own stubborness. Not that I would mind…

“He is a measured, very detailed and tediously researched scholar.. he takes the (church’s) teaching very seriously, and when he critiques it, it is with a nuance and consideration that doesn’t yield easy sound bites.”

And so they attack and ban him. It was called the Dark Ages for a reason. The church has been suppressing and controlling for centuries. Good for him for shining light on the truths and deceits of the past.

Not sure what the dilemma is: a fetus is human and it is alive and it has it’s own, unique DNA (thus, it is not a part of or a ‘growth’ of the mother’s body).

It is most certainly the taking of innocent,human life to procure an abortion…no getting around that biological fact. The question at hand is “is it OK to take innocent, human life”. The church has always taught that is is not OK to do this, regardless of what Thomas Aquinas said about ‘ensoulment’, which has nothing to do with the question at hand. If some want to call this notion antiquated, we are better off being antiquated than being progressive.

For those of you waiting for the Church to ‘modernize’ on moral issues such as these, don’t hold your breath…the Church and it’s dogmatic teachings have held firm for 2000 yrs and will outlast you, me and nations.

A clarification is in order on the position that St. Thomas Aquinas took on ensoulment. He identified that as the point from which human life had to be presumed present in the absence of scientific understanding of the processes leading to that point. Abortion was still forbidden prior to that point in a pregnancy in order to give the benefit of the doubt to whether what was already present might actually be fully human that science as it was then could not discern as such. He never said that prior to quickening the baby was not human, nor that abortion was acceptable prior to that point, but that after quickening there was no doubt that abortion was the murder of a human.

Only recently has the process of fertilization been understood and mechanics of the process more or less finally settled as far as the stages and what actually happens in the creation of a new human individual. Before we reached that level of understanding, neither he or any other Catholic theologian actually took a position that human life did not exist at a point prior to whatever the current baseline was.

The development in Catholic teaching on abortion has not been on when abortion was acceptable (as it was specifically forbidden across the board as early as the writing called the Didache ~circa 150 AD) but as to what point we knew abortion was clearly murder…

It’s important to note that Curran’s personal views are in line with Rome’s in opposition to abortion; the difference, though, is that he’s not an authoritarian who demands everyone throughout society follow his own moral opinions by codifying them into law. The bishops, though, are authoritarians who seek to bind the consciences of all citizens — Catholic and non-Catholic — to their peculiar views on certain political matters like abortion. Curran says that the church’s role is to encourage its views of morality on those willing to listen rather than force them on everyone, and citizens should be free to govern their own lives without ecclesiastical meddling (church membership is a voluntary matter).

Fortunately for Curran his church no longer sets dissenters like him on fire. Unfortunately, though, the Roman Catholic church — and in particular the US council of bishops — still insists that it form public policy beyond its own church walls and thereby interfere in the lives of people who don’t even subject themselves to Roman Catholic authority and teachings.

It’s not as if he’s lecturing on the subject at Notre Dame — it’s at Southern METHODIST University… and the subject isn’t on whether or not the Catholic Church’s current doctine is correct, but on how it (like civil marriage equality) have been politicized by the RCC and whether that politicization has a solid enough theological foundation.

Curran, who has stirred controversy before by challenging church teachings on social issues, accepts that abortion is always wrong and sees his paper as addressing the church’s advocacy for abortion laws in the U.S..

————————

So basically he is saying that the Catholic church needs to butt out of politics…. and that has the Bishops’ collective noses out of joint.

I happen to agree with him on this, in spite of the fact that I was raised Catholic. He’s not disputing that abortion is wrong, just that the church needs to stay out of the legal battle.

I do disagree with him though if he thinks that the abortion issue is still the primary focus of the Church. Currently, I see much more attention by the Church for the push to accept illegal aliens.

Flo Lake wrote,”It is refreshing to know that Reb. Charles Curran dares to have an opposing & progressive voice. Sooner rather than later, the Catholic church is going to be forced to ‘modernize’ its thinking and ways. To do otherwise is to live in the past and to continue to subscribe to a bunch of geriatrics that call the shots within the Vatican.

—————–

Flo, the Church has modernized…. in some ways…. I remember when mass was in Latin, Fasting was required from sat. evening until Sunday mass, Fridays were for fish only, women had to wear hair coverings in church, etc. My point is that it has evolved most likely as much as it will in my lifetime.

No one person,sect, or country will ever be able to force the Vatican to change. Those who disagree with the Church will simply stop going to mass,and tithing, like I have.

Do people really think that God is negotiable about things like abortion, adultery, or any other sin??? The scriptures say he is not. When he freed the harlot from being stoned he did not say you are forgiven. He said go and sin no more. He is not negotiable. He is forgiving however. Up to a point that He decides .

“Only recently has the process of fertilization been understood and mechanics of the process more or less finally settled as far as the stages and what actually happens in the creation of a new human individual. Before we reached that level of understanding, neither he or any other Catholic theologian actually took a position that human life did not exist at a point prior to whatever the current baseline was. ”

………………

For a moment, it sounded like you had an informed opinion, until you suggested that people thousands of years ago did not understand conception. They did not have microscopes, but just read anything, including scripture, and they knew darn well that conception was the direct result of “planting the seed” in a woman. These people had livestock. They were keenly aware that sheep beget sheep and cattle beget cattle. They had seen miscarriages where a fetus who had not yet “quickened” looked human, and they ate eggs, and knew that what was in the egg was an a stage of the unhatched chicken, but that it had not developed.

It is ludicrous to think that the fact that only since Victorian times has abortion been considered murder that it was a matter of scientific ignorance before. They have always known, as well as we do now, that the fruit of the womb is human in its makeup, and is comprised of the essence of both father and mother. But being human tissue, or even a human individual did not equate to being a human person then, and it is not logically necessary that it does now, either. Hence, it DOES matter what the historical position of the Church is. Everyone who would claim that we should not alter the teachings rashly to accept things like homosexuality, should be equally wary of letting recent attitudes about abortion slip quietly from position, to doctrine, to dogma without examination.

“It’s important to note that Curran’s personal views are in line with Rome’s in opposition to abortion; the difference, though, is that he’s not an authoritarian who demands everyone throughout society follow his own moral opinions by codifying them into law. The bishops, though, are authoritarians who seek to bind the consciences of all citizens — Catholic and non-Catholic — to their peculiar views on certain political matters like abortion.”

That’s flat out laughable. Progressives are the ones who “enforce their moral opinions by codifying them into law.” They’ve used the courts to ram all kinds of nutty stuff down the throats of the collective public that they would have never been able to pass via general elections. At least people can quit the Catholic church.

SMU is really stirring the controversy pot lately. First, football and a degree program for the team, then they wanted a real mustang instead of the Shetland pony, a place for George to keep his comic books, and now, a pro-abortion catholic? Wow,things are sure hoppin’.

“birth control for married couples, homosexuality, divorce, marriage and women in ministry”.

Hmmmm, Curan still has time in his career to challenge the Pope’s authority and representation of Christ; real presence in the Eucharist; traditions of fasting, austerity, poverty, chastity, and obedience; celibacy of the priesthood; and purgatory. Let’s pray that Fr. Curan can repent and do penance so that his blindness is illuminated with the Word and Truth and Wisdom – Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

========================================

Lets hope he can cause the catholic church to repent for their many sins….alloing pedophiles to work with children….to cover up child abuse…and stealing from the poor based on lies.

I don’t jump on the band wagon in support of abortion. It is the worst form of birth control for stupid couples who have no concept about the results.

As a Catholic, I applaud Fr. Curan for thinking outside of the box & challenging the Church. This led to Vatican II. We are poised for a Vatican III.

I remember comment at my former parish by a charismatic Catholic lady, “you got a watch those Jesuits, they are too smart”. These are many & perhaps too many brainless conservative Catholics unable & unwilling to change for the parishioners, Church survival, & growth of the priesthood. If things stay as they are, the Church will fade away per the next few decades without charimasic leaders & thinkers. In most conservative parishes, evangelization ALL OF THE TIME is both quite ineffective and usually a low priority.

We need guys like Fr. Curan who are smart & willing to think outside of the box!

For those of you waiting for the Church to ‘modernize’ on moral issues such as these, don’t hold your breath…the Church and it’s dogmatic teachings have held firm for 2000 yrs and will outlast you, me and nations.

So the Synod of Hippo was just a trip to the zoo for all of the bishops to celebrate 400 years of unchanged dogma?

while taking a life is wrong, so is the fact that someone has to shoulder the responsibility of raising a child they didn’t want. I don’t see the Church or the Public moving forward to pay the Hospital or Doctor bills, they don’t see them standing behind you when you need food, clothes and medical assistance for this child. Clean your own house and keep your nose out of mine.

Before I would make any judgment of Fr Curran, I believe I would have him answer the following question: What is your stance on the Catholic Churchs’ long and continuing history of concealment of widespread sexual abuse of children by priests?

BlitheringIdiot wrote, “It’s not like Jesus would have demanded that the priests and scribes think about their rules and try to be sure that the theology they preached was backed up by scripture. Heck, they probably would have hung him up if he did that.”

Actually, if Jesus was being true to Jewish traditions, He would have had reasoned arguments with them. And had they been true to those same traditions, they would have argued back in reasoned fashion. Even in Jesus’ time, Jews were having extensive discussions on scripture and how to live the commandments. No one would have been “hung up”.

theologians they dont know nothing about my soul. religion is a joke – it only exists because of weak minded idiots who cant find any meaning in their own lives. live life, be happy, and you dont need a bunch of old, little-boy loving men to tell you what to do.

Dad rapes daughter and impregnates her. She is forced to keep fetus and raise this baby for life.

Scenario:

Young scared girl goes to back alley abortionist who hastily and dirtily removes fetus. She can no longer have children and she gets a disastrous infection.

Scary and lamentable stuff, but we must consider positions other than those we’d put ourselves in. Do we make everything illegal that “we’d never do?” We need to value giving others rights to live as they choose, not as we’d choose for them to live. Hopefully, we will all reciprocally return this favor, and actually give individuals choice about how they want to live.

@Wayne Pflughaupt: That’s flat out laughable. Progressives are the ones who “enforce their moral opinions by codifying them into law.” They’ve used the courts to ram all kinds of nutty stuff down the throats of the collective public that they would have never been able to pass via general elections. At least people can quit the Catholic church.

I’m not “progressive” (I’m libertarian) but I differ with you on the role of courts in our system of government as those are typically the last recourse for redressing the tyranny of majorities when they trample civil rights. What gets passed as legislation or even as initiatives in general elections isn’t inherently constitutional merely because it enjoys popular support — our legal history is full of attempts of majorities to oppress others. That includes racial oppression as well as sexual oppression, enfranchisement (voting rights), etc. Are those nutty ideas?

With respect to abortion, your own rights are in no way violated if a woman wants one no matter if you think it’s objectionable; you would, however, infringe on a woman’s rights via power of law and forbid her access to a safe and legal abortion (and probably education and contraception to help her prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place). Some of us don’t think reproductive freedom is such a nutty idea compared to forcing women to have children they don’t want or even of being denied the right to sexual pleasure in or out of marriage (remember, the Roman Catholic Church opposes contraception, too — Griswold v. Connecticut was one of those “nutty” rulings that let people choose contraception rather than the authoritarians and theocrats). Leaving issues related to sexuality and reproduction to a bunch of sexually-repressed and socially-dysfunctional anachronisms like the US bishops is nuttier than squirrel poop.

If you have a problem with so many fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church, why don’t you go find a denomination or church that is more inline with your thinking? If you don’t agree with the church on so many major issues, YOU ARE NOT CATHOLIC. QUIT PRETENDING. Have the courage to leave the church and start your own church if you believe these things so strongly. I just hope they come to their senses and excommunicate you soon.